What is the difference between being impolite and being prejudiced? Can you tell from one statement whether someone is then prejudiced - is that even possible?
What attributes have been arbitrarily assigned?
Who's raging? Isn't that, in your definition, showing a prejudice by assigning an arbitrary attribute?
I think that the default mode for humans is to be wary of the different. In a civilised society, we should not try to ignore the differences between people but acknowledge and respect them and where at all possible,accommodate them bearing also in mind that, as humans, we have vastly more similarities than differences.
What is the difference between being impolite and being prejudiced? Can you tell from one statement whether someone is then prejudiced - is that even possible?
What attributes have been arbitrarily assigned?
Who's raging? Isn't that, in your definition, showing a prejudice by assigning an arbitrary attribute?
Prejudice is as I defined it above, I think you know what being impolite is - its merely breaking social norms.
You can *only* tell from people’s statements and behaviours that they are prejudiced, and what thise prejudices are.
It doesnt matter what attributes. It only matters that they are assigned merely due to membership of a group - this is pre-judgement.
There are plenty of people raging against political correctness, what value does it add to the discussion to add names?
Im not sure what you mean, but it is surely not a matter of debate as to whether people are raging against political correctness or not. Its in the public domain, its not a secret.
I think that the default mode for humans is to be wary of the different. In a civilised society, we should not try to ignore the differences between people but acknowledge and respect them and where at all possible,accommodate them bearing also in mind that, as humans, we have vastly more similarities than differences.
Indeed. If you can look at someone, regardless of how different they are to you and in whatever way, yet still treat them with the same dignity and respect as you would yourself or those you regard as your own - you’ve cracked it.
I'd always thought James Wong was a sensible chap so that comes as something of a surprise.
Just looking for publicity, probably.
As a woman who has worked in a very male dominated industry since the 1980s, I have suffered sexism and met a few sexists. Not all the sexism I experienced was from sexists, most was just thoughtlessness and habit. It's relatively hard to define but I can recognise a sexist when I meet one. The man who walked in to our office, looked at me, looked at my boss and said to him "What is she doing here? Shouldn't she be at home doing the housework?" was a sexist. Mostly because he said it to my boss, not me. The man who suggested my career prospects may be better if I wore more make-up was not a sexist, though his comment was. The fact I was paid less than my male peers for my entire career was sexism, but not only perpetrated by sexists.
An example for you to think about: an architect I met when I was a student remarked when I was introduced to the meeting (all men) that the most pointless people he knew were women and engineers so a woman engineer must be the very lowest form of life there is. It was said aggressively, without humour, and followed by an instruction to 'make myself useful and pour the coffee'. Is that sexist? His insult was as much about my profession as my gender, so are both parts of his statement equally offensive? I would contend not, I was more offended by 'women are useless' than by 'engineers are pointless'. I would find it very hard to explain why but I felt the difference, even as a teenager. He was doing it, obviously, to exert power and try to humiliate and bully me. Does that make it any less sexist? He could have simply said 'not another $%&&&&^ engineer - just go and pour the coffee' and it wouldn't have been (overtly) sexist. In my experience, those who chose an insult based on what you are and not what you do are the 'ists'., as well as rude. And that, in my opinion, goes for John Terry as well.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
My problem with Terry's actions (a man I totally dislike and think is a thug - totally irrationally as I don't know him from Adam and have only ever seen him on TV) is that if I accept Terry's actions as racist, then it opens up Ferdinand to the same accusation doesn't it?
I think it's fair to say that a comment can be 'ist' or not, and a person can be 'ist' or not and a person who is 'ist' doesn't then always use 'ist' comments to put/keep someone down. And someone who is not 'ist' may use an 'ist' comment. Is that fair? So how can you tell from the interaction between the two whether it was Terry being 'ist' and using an 'ist' phrase or him just being an objectionable git. Similarly, couldn't Ferdinand's non 'ist', objectionable comments have been 'ist' if Ferdinand had a habit of putting white people down using non 'ist' comments?
When the issue first hit the headlines, my first gut reaction was along the lines of '...typical Terry, a thug and a racist...totally reinforces my opinion of him...', but that was just my prejudice against Terry surfacing wasn't it?
The man was either: Concerned about his own sexuality Afraid of women Concerned about his ability to do his job A prat and any or all of the above
I suspect he was intimidated by a woman who he thought might have proved to be more intelligent than him so he was getting his defence in early to try to stop me challenging him during the meeting. It is emphatically not the case that men hate women (or vice versa). Many women know only a handful of men well (and vice versa) but that is not my experience. I have met a lot of men, worked closely with dozens and been friends with almost as many - it is a privilege of working in the environment I do that I am not confined to my own gender for ordinary day to day social relationships. Among men of my own age and younger, treating women as people rather than as 'women' is commonplace. It's the older generations on the whole who find that difficult.
I don't know what Ferdinand is supposed to have said to Terry. I know that the macho environment they both inhabit leads to things being said for effect that are not actually what people believe, just what they think they are supposed to say. Terry could have made a racist statement (it was) without being racist. In the position he held at the time, he had responsibility to act differently - to set a better example. People in the public eye should be aware of the significance of their words and actions. If it was just game banter, and he was searching for an insult to goad Ferdinand to try to put him off his game, then he could have just missed out the reference to race and left the other obscenities to do that, surely? That the race point immediately came to mind tells me that he was always conscious of it and therefore is a racist. You also have to accept - which can be a tricky point - that being on the wrong end of ists and ism for years can make you become ist yourself, just because your experiences convince you that everyone you meet is ist. But that's a different process to the fear of difference and the irrational ism that starts it. Where there is cause, it is harder to condemn than when there is no justification (I think we're back to Boudicca now).
The American slave trade was racist. Romans (for an example of other famous slavers) treated all people as either slave or free, regardless of colour or ethinicity or religion. The American slave trade treated the slaves as sub-human, a commodity like a farm animal with no voice, because of their race. And even a freed slave was not an equal to others in society (still aren't). Slavery is always evil, it is not always racist.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Well, apparently now even gardening has been declared “racist”. Because some gardeners prefer native plants. You couldn’t make it up
I guess Japanese Knot Weed was feeling discriminated 😂😂😂
I wouldn't really trust the Daily Mail to give an honest representation of what was said or meant!
There is a debate around this issue, with ecologist-plantsmen James Hitchmough and Nigel Dunnett and others championing the importance of non-native species in terms of ecological impact, whereas the default view from most ecologists is natives are always better, and in some cases, that non-natives are practically useless.
I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning why this default position seems so stubbornly prevalent in people's thinking in spite of the growing academic evidence (and as gardeners we all know the importance of non-native exotics for the wildlife that visits our gardens).
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour".
Posts
You can *only* tell from people’s statements and behaviours that they are prejudiced, and what thise prejudices are.
It doesnt matter what attributes. It only matters that they are assigned merely due to membership of a group - this is pre-judgement.
There are plenty of people raging against political correctness, what value does it add to the discussion to add names?
Im not sure what you mean, but it is surely not a matter of debate as to whether people are raging against political correctness or not. Its in the public domain, its not a secret.
Because some gardeners prefer native plants. You couldn’t make it up
I guess Japanese Knot Weed was feeling discriminated 😂😂😂
As a woman who has worked in a very male dominated industry since the 1980s, I have suffered sexism and met a few sexists. Not all the sexism I experienced was from sexists, most was just thoughtlessness and habit. It's relatively hard to define but I can recognise a sexist when I meet one. The man who walked in to our office, looked at me, looked at my boss and said to him "What is she doing here? Shouldn't she be at home doing the housework?" was a sexist. Mostly because he said it to my boss, not me. The man who suggested my career prospects may be better if I wore more make-up was not a sexist, though his comment was. The fact I was paid less than my male peers for my entire career was sexism, but not only perpetrated by sexists.
An example for you to think about: an architect I met when I was a student remarked when I was introduced to the meeting (all men) that the most pointless people he knew were women and engineers so a woman engineer must be the very lowest form of life there is. It was said aggressively, without humour, and followed by an instruction to 'make myself useful and pour the coffee'.
Is that sexist? His insult was as much about my profession as my gender, so are both parts of his statement equally offensive?
I would contend not, I was more offended by 'women are useless' than by 'engineers are pointless'. I would find it very hard to explain why but I felt the difference, even as a teenager.
He was doing it, obviously, to exert power and try to humiliate and bully me. Does that make it any less sexist? He could have simply said 'not another $%&&&&^ engineer - just go and pour the coffee' and it wouldn't have been (overtly) sexist.
In my experience, those who chose an insult based on what you are and not what you do are the 'ists'., as well as rude. And that, in my opinion, goes for John Terry as well.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Concerned about his own sexuality
Afraid of women
Concerned about his ability to do his job
A prat and any or all of the above
It is emphatically not the case that men hate women (or vice versa). Many women know only a handful of men well (and vice versa) but that is not my experience. I have met a lot of men, worked closely with dozens and been friends with almost as many - it is a privilege of working in the environment I do that I am not confined to my own gender for ordinary day to day social relationships. Among men of my own age and younger, treating women as people rather than as 'women' is commonplace. It's the older generations on the whole who find that difficult.
I don't know what Ferdinand is supposed to have said to Terry. I know that the macho environment they both inhabit leads to things being said for effect that are not actually what people believe, just what they think they are supposed to say. Terry could have made a racist statement (it was) without being racist. In the position he held at the time, he had responsibility to act differently - to set a better example. People in the public eye should be aware of the significance of their words and actions. If it was just game banter, and he was searching for an insult to goad Ferdinand to try to put him off his game, then he could have just missed out the reference to race and left the other obscenities to do that, surely? That the race point immediately came to mind tells me that he was always conscious of it and therefore is a racist.
You also have to accept - which can be a tricky point - that being on the wrong end of ists and ism for years can make you become ist yourself, just because your experiences convince you that everyone you meet is ist. But that's a different process to the fear of difference and the irrational ism that starts it. Where there is cause, it is harder to condemn than when there is no justification (I think we're back to Boudicca now).
The American slave trade was racist. Romans (for an example of other famous slavers) treated all people as either slave or free, regardless of colour or ethinicity or religion. The American slave trade treated the slaves as sub-human, a commodity like a farm animal with no voice, because of their race. And even a freed slave was not an equal to others in society (still aren't). Slavery is always evil, it is not always racist.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
There is a debate around this issue, with ecologist-plantsmen James Hitchmough and Nigel Dunnett and others championing the importance of non-native species in terms of ecological impact, whereas the default view from most ecologists is natives are always better, and in some cases, that non-natives are practically useless.
I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning why this default position seems so stubbornly prevalent in people's thinking in spite of the growing academic evidence (and as gardeners we all know the importance of non-native exotics for the wildlife that visits our gardens).